B.S. Dhillon And Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 1186 Del

$~38
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 15.02.2016

+       W.P.(C) 2916/2015 & CM 5224/2015
B.S. DHILLON AND ORS.                                              .... Petitioners
                                       versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                              ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners                    : Mr Rishi Bhatnagar
For the Respondents LAC/L&B            : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent DDA                 : Mr Arjun Pant
For the Respondent UOI                 : Mr K.K. Jha

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The additional affidavit handed over on behalf of respondent nos. 2

and 3 by Mr Yeeshu Jain is taken on record. The learned counsel for the

petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and reiterates the

averments made in the writ petition.

2. The petitioners seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act')

which came into effect on 01.01.2014. A declaration is sought to the

effect that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which

Award No.15/1992-93 dated 19.06.1992 was made, inter alia, in respect

of petitioners' land comprised in khasra nos. 62 and 65 in village

Behlolpur Khadar, New Delhi has lapsed. Khasra no. 62 comprises of 13

bighas 6 biswas out of which the petitioner no.2 claims only 1 bigha.

Khasra no. 65 comprises of 7 bighas 11 biswas out of which the petitioner

no.1 claims only 1 bigha.

3. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land

was taken on 21.04.2006, the petitioners dispute this and maintain that

physical possession has not been taken. However, insofar as the issue of

compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it has not been

paid.

4. Without going into the controversy of physical possession, this

much is clear that the Award was made more than five years prior to the

commencement of the 2013 Act and the compensation has also not been

paid. The necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of

the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the

following cases stand satisfied:-

(1) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;

(2) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564;

(3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;

(4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and

(5) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors:

WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.

5. As a result, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the said

acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the

subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents also raised the objection

that the present petition would not be maintainable, at least on behalf the

petitioner no.2, because the said petitioner was a subsequent purchaser.

Though, under the 1894 Act, the Supreme Court has held that the

subsequent purchaser would not have a right to challenge the acquisition

and would only have a right to compensation, in the present petition the

challenge is not to the acquisition proceeding but, the petition is one

whereby a declaration is being sought of a right deemed to have accrued

to the petitioner by virtue of the deeming provision of section 24(2) of the

2013 Act. Once the acquisition has lapsed because of the triggering of

the deeming provision of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the benefit of the

same cannot be denied to the petitioner No. 2 on the ground that he is a

subsequent purchaser.

7. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be

no order as to costs.

                                        BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J


FEBRUARY 15, 2016                              R.K. GAUBA , J
kb